Candace Kunz-Freed Defendant in 412249-403 9545 Katy Fwy Ste 400
Houston, TX 77024 (7130 467-1060 Bar Card Number: 24041282
TX License Date: 11/06/2003 Freedlawyer.com
Cory S. Reed
One Riverway, Suite 1400
Houston, Texas 77056
Telephone: (713) 403-8200
Telecopy: (713) 403-8299
Email:creed@thompsoncoe.com
Malpractice Insurance company Attorneys for estate planning attorneys Vacek & Freed et al.,
County Employee/Appointee (Associate Judge) Clarinda Comstock
Clarinda Comstock was a Defendant in a wrongful death action involving Willie Jo Mills. See SHERRY LYNN JOHNSON vs. DAVID DEXEL, ET AL SDTX Case 4:16-cv-03215
County Employee/Appointee (Associate Judge) Clarinda Comstock was represented in that case by Cory Reed and Zandra Foley, the same law firm and attorneys that are representing the Vacek & Freed estate planning attorneys in the case transferred to the probate court from the District Court with no pending estate administration and where the case has remained before Comstock without a plaintiff since Carl Brunsting resigned the office of independent executor February 19, 2015. Clarinda Comstock has never had the integrity to declare her conflicts of interest in the case and fer former attorneys at Thompson Coe, have been getting paid for litigating a case that hasn't had a plaintiff since Carl Brunsting resigned the office of "independent executor" on February 19, 2015. In fact, it was Cory Reed in the -403 numbered case (the one snatched from the district court without a pending probate) that asked for a "status conference".
| Bobbie
G. Bayless
Attorney for
Drina Brunsting, Bayless & Stokes Purported Attorney in Fact 2931 Ferndale for Plaintiff Carl Brunsting Houston, Texas 77098 Independent executor O: 713-522-2224 F: 713-522-2218 E: bayless@baylessstokes.com |
NEAL E. SPIELMAN
Texas State Bar No. 00794678
nspielman@grifmatlaw.com
1155 Dairy Ashford, Suite 300
Houston, Texas 77079
281.870.1124 - Phone
Attorney for imposter Co-Trustee, Amy Brunsting
Attorney Gregory Lester Texas State Bar No. 12235700
PO BOX 79766
HOUSTON, TX77279
Telephone: (281) 597-1300
The Probate Mafia and the Brunsting Family Trust
The Brunsting trust controversy is not a probate matter, a probate case or a probate proceeding and there is no estate administration for all of these fraudulently manufactured cases to have been filed ancillary too. This is color-of-law organized crime and this is only one case history but it rings a lot of bells and blows a lot of whistles that form a pattern of racketeering activity devoted to the interception (theft) of family generational asset transfers. Before I begin that effort, I want to make a couple of summary points. Since I am making allegations of racketeering (a/k/a organized crime) I will visit the Texas Penal Code and Title 18 of the United States Codes in context.
The Marks
Elmer H. Brunsting
Nelva E Brunsting
Candace Brunsting-Curtis
Carole Brunsting
Carl Brunsting
Amy Brunsting
Anita Brunsting
A few distinctions
A will is a testamentary instrument and a trust created under a will is a testamentary trust. An estate is a container object formed by operation of law and used to hold property while right are determined, either under a will or, according to the laws of intestate succession.
These types of arrangements are to be distinguished from living trusts which are not testamentary instruments but contracts among the living that either continue until an event or date certain or terminate with the passing of their creators.
A living trust is a contract. It is distinguishable from other contracts by the separation of legal and equitable titles to property. A trust is a relationship wherein legal title to assets are given to one (trustee) by the Settlor/Founder/Grantor, to be held in trust for the benefit of another (beneficiary) who holds equitable title to the property and the right to enjoy the property. The beneficiary is considered the true owner of the property.
However, separation of legal and equitable titles are only two legs of a proverbial three-legged stool. The third leg involves active and passive trusts and the Statute of Uses. The obligations of the trustee must be affirmative and not merely nominal and enforceable against the trustee by the beneficiary or the trust becomes passive and both legal and equitable titles merge in the beneficiary.
For a trust to exist (1) legal and (2) equitable titles must remain separate AND (3) the trustee’s obligations to the beneficiary must be affirmative and enforceable.
If the obligations of the trustee are not active or enforceable against the trustee the trust collapses and both legal and equitable titles merge in the beneficiary. It necessarily follows that (1) Either the trustee has affirmative duties to perform for the benefit of the beneficiary and they are in breach of those obligations or, (2) they do not have affirmative fiduciary duties to perform for the benefit of the beneficiary and they are in wrongful possession of the beneficiary’s property. In either event the beneficiary does not forfeit their property interests by bringing judicial action to protect property interests and compel fiduciary performance.
The Participants
The Good
Candice Leonard Schwager
Texas Bar No. 24005603
The Schwager Law Firm
2210 Village Dale Ave
Houston, Texas 77059
(Tel): 832-315-8489
candiceschwager@icloud.com
http://www.schwagerfirm.com
The Bad
STEPHEN A. MENDEL Texas State Bar No. 13930650 1155 Dairy Ashford, Suite 300 Houston, Texas 77079 O: 281-759-3213 F: 281-759-3214 E: steve@mendellawfirm.com Attorney for imposter Co-Trustee, Anita Brunsting
|
| NEAL
E. SPIELMAN
Texas State Bar No. 00794678 nspielman@grifmatlaw.com 1155 Dairy
Ashford, Suite 300 Houston, Texas 77079 281.870.1124 - Phone Attorney
for imposter Co-Trustee, Amy Brunsting |
| Bobbie
G. Bayless
Attorney for
Drina Brunsting, Bayless & Stokes
Purported
Attorney in Fact 2931 Ferndale
for Plaintiff
Carl Brunsting Houston, Texas 77098
Individually
and as independent executor O: 713-522-2224
F:
713-522-2218
E: bayless@baylessstokes.com |
| Cory S. Reed Attorneys for Vacek & Freed et al., One Riverway, Suite 1400 Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone: (713) 403-8200 Telecopy: (713) 403-8299 Email:creed@thompsoncoe.com |
| Candace Kunz-Freed Defendant in 412249-403 9545 Katy Fwy Ste 400 Houston, TX 77024 (7130 467-1060 Bar Card Number: 24041282 TX License Date: 11/06/2003 Freedlawyer.com |
| |
The Ugly
| James Horwitz |
James Horwitz
Presiding Judge, Harris County Probate Court No. 4
People of the State of Texas
Leslie J. Friedlander Assistant Attorney General of Texas
Office of the Texas Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711-2548
O: 512-463-3085
F: 512-477-2348
E: Leslie.friedlander@oag.texas.gov
John Bruster Loyd
Jones, Gillaspia & Loyd, L.L.P.
4400 Post Oak Pkwy, Suite 2360
Houston, TX 77027
O: 713-225-9000
F: 713-225-6126
Attorney for Party in Interest Carole Ann Brunsting
The Objective
The Frontend Methodology
The Backend Methodology
Court does not rule on pending motions unless they are purely procedural with few exceptions, to be noted infra.
Hearings are scheduled but converted into “status conferences” at the last minute, using any number of excuses
Settlement Agreement (contract)
The Offenses both Public [Crime] and Private [Tort]
Fraud, everything it implies as a general category of scienter tainting the entire affair.
Breach of fiduciary / Conflicts of Interest
Duty of Loyalty
Duty of Impartiality
Duty to carry out the obligations defined by the trust instrument
Duty to distribute income to, or for the benefit of, the beneficiaries to avoid excess taxes
Misapplication of Fiduciary Property by both act and omission Texas Penal Code § 32.45
Misapplication of Fiduciary Property held for the benefit of an elderly person by both act and omission - Texas Penal Code § 32.53
Forgery
Fraudulent Destruction, Removal, Or Concealment of Writing Texas Penal Code § 32.47 -
Wiretap– telephone wiretap referred to in Candace Curtis original federal complaint and proven by her attorneys when they released copies of those recordings [Brunsting5838.wav] and [Brunsting5839.wav] via certified mail and used as an excuse to avoid dispositive motions hearings. Another docket control order would not be entered for another 6 ½ years and even then the case would never see a trial or even an evidentiary hearing.
Stalking eavesdropping on Nelva’s emails. We suspected this by the reactions from Houston every time Candace asked her mother about the trust on the phone or in an email.
Extortion/Intimidation (front end) Texas Penal Code § 32.46 - Fraudulent Securing of Document Execution
Extortion/Intimidation (back end)
Conversion
Theft of Personage
Obstruction of Justice
Denial of Due Process
Front End Estate Planning Bait and Switch
Back End Exploitation
Everyone who participates is a felon.
Tex. Pen. Code § 7.01 - Parties to Offenses
(a) A person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense if the offense is committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another for which he is criminally responsible, or by both.(b) Each party to an offense may be charged with commission of the offense.(c) All traditional distinctions between accomplices and principals are abolished by this section, and each party to an offense may be charged and convicted without alleging that he acted as a principal or accomplice.
Tex. Pen. Code § 7.02
“(a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if: (1) acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense;(2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or(3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense.(b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.”
Tex. Pen. Code § 32.45
“(a) For purposes of this section:(1) "Fiduciary" includes: (A) a trustee, guardian, administrator, executor, conservator, and receiver;(B) an attorney in fact or agent appointed under a durable power of attorney as provided by Subtitle P, Title 2, Estates Code;(C) any other person acting in a fiduciary capacity, but not a commercial bailee unless the commercial bailee is a party in a motor fuel sales agreement with a distributor or supplier, as those terms are defined by Section 162.001, Tax Code; and(D) an officer, manager, employee, or agent carrying on fiduciary functions on behalf of a fiduciary.(2) "Misapply" means deal with property contrary to: (A) an agreement under which the fiduciary holds the property; or(B) a law prescribing the custody or disposition of the property.(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misapplies property he holds as a fiduciary or property of a financial institution in a manner that involves substantial risk of loss to the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property is held.(c) An offense under this section is:(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the value of the property misapplied is less than $100;(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the value of the property misapplied is $100 or more but less than $750;(3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the property misapplied is $750 or more but less than $2,500;(4) a state jail felony if the value of the property misapplied is $2,500 or more but less than $30,000;(5) a felony of the third degree if the value of the property misapplied is $30,000 or more but less than $150,000;(6) a felony of the second degree if the value of the property misapplied is $150,000 or more but less than $300,000; or(7) a felony of the first degree if the value of the property misapplied is $300,000 or more.(d) An offense described for purposes of punishment by Subsections (c)(1)-(6) is increased to the next higher category of offense if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the offense was committed against an elderly individual as defined by Section 22.04.(e) With the consent of the appropriate local county or district attorney, the attorney general has concurrent jurisdiction with that consenting local prosecutor to prosecute an offense under this section that involves the state Medicaid program.”
Texas Penal Code §32.45 Misapplication of Fiduciary Property In Excess Of $300,000
Texas Penal Code Section 32.46 - Fraudulent Securing of Document Execution
Texas Penal Code Section 32.47 - Fraudulent Destruction, Removal, Or Concealment of Writing
Texas Penal Code Section 32.48 - Simulating Legal Process
Texas Penal Code 32.53 - Exploitation of Child, Elderly Individual, Or Disabled Individual
NOTICE OF CASES RELATED BY OPERATIVE FACTS AND PARTICIPANTS
- SDTX No. 4:12-cv-592 Candace Louise Curtis vs Amy Brunsting, Anita Brunsting and Does 1-100, a breach of fiduciary action seeking accounting and disclosures filed 2/27/2012. Filed Pro se!
- 5th Circuit ROA.12-20164 – Curtis v Brunsting 704 F.3d 406 (pro se appeal)
- Harris County District Court 164 Cause No. 2013-05455, a malpractice action against the estate planning attorneys filed by Carl Brunsting as “independent executor” of his Parents estate, filed January 29, 2013. Carl resigned the office of “independent executor” February 19, 2015 and there has been no plaintiff in this case since.
- Harris County Probate Court No. 4 Cause No. 412249-401, a civil tort action exclusively related to the Brunsting trust filed on April 9, 2013, the same day as the injunction hearing in SDTX No. 4:12-cv-592.
- Harris County Probate Court No. 4 Cause No. 412249-402 – the federal case was remanded to Harris County Probate Court No. 4 May 14, 2014.
- The “remand order” was accepted in Probate Court No. 4 as a “transfer order” on May 22, 2014; converted into “Estate of Nelva Brunsting No. 412249-402” and then Dissolved into Estate of Nelva Brunsting No. 412249-401, which is the case brought by Carl Brunsting both individually and as “independent” executor on March 9, 2015.
- Curtis et al., vs. Kunz-Freed et al., SDTX No. 4:16-cv-1969, an honest services fraud case brought under the racketeer influenced corrupt organization statutes filed July 5, 2016: dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- 5th Circuit ROA.17-20360 affirmed for lack of a sufficient statement of supporting facts June 28, 2018.
- Registration of Foreign Judgment, Submission ID: 43704956, filed with Harris District Clerk on June 12, 2020, domesticating the federal preliminary injunction. The Foreign Judgment was not challenged by the respondents within 30 days as required and thus, the Foreign Judgment became a final judgement on July 12, 2020.
- 412249-403 – This is case #3 supra, Harris County District Court 164 Cause No. 2013-05455 ordered transferred to Harris County Probate Court No. 4 on April 4, 2019, without a pending probate administration to be ancillary to and, where it remains without a plaintiff. (See Narvaez v Powell)
Haight v. Koley Jessen PC, No. 10-18-00057-CV, at *4-5 (Tex. App. June 12, 2019) (“In In re Hannah, the court held that a cause of action brought in the district court was not a "matter related to a probate proceeding" within the scope of Section 31.002 of the Estates Code. In re Hannah, 431 S.W.3d at 809. The court focused on the nature of the damages sought, and held that because the suit sought damages which would, if awarded, be satisfied from the defendant's individual assets rather than from any property of the estate, the claims were not related to a probate proceeding. In re Hannah, 431 S.W.3d at 809-811. In Narvaez, the court agreed with the court in Hannah that the nature of the claims and the relief sought must be examined when determining whether the probate court has jurisdiction of a non-probate claim. Narvaez v. Powell, 564 S.W.3d 49, 56 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, no pet). In Narvaez, a group of heirs filed suit in district court against attorneys alleging breach of fiduciary duties and legal malpractice. Narvaez v. Powell, 564 S.W.3d at 52. The court in Narvaez found that a legal malpractice claim cannot be characterized as a probate proceeding within the meaning of Section 31.001 or related to a probate proceeding as that term is defined by Section 31.002 of the Estates Code. Narvaez v. Powell, 564 S.W.3d at 57.”)
- 412249-404 – A statutory Bill of Review constituting a direct attack on the Probate Courts Order denying Candace Curtis Plea to the Jurisdiction BUT MADE INTO A SEPARATE CASE BY THE CLERK.
- 412249-405 – This case was created March 11, 2022 by an order severing Carl Brunsting from the 412249-401 lawsuit Carl Brunsting filed in the probate court April 9, 2013, [No. 412249-401], leaving Candace Curtis as the sole defendant with alleged Co-Trustee Defendants Amy Brunsting and Anita Brunsting and their attorneys Stephen Mendel and Neal Spielman as the only remaining Plaintiff’s in the lawsuit Carl Brunsting filed the same day as the preliminary injunction hearing in the Southern District of Texas.
- Texas First District Court of Appeal No. 01-22-00378-CV (Appeal Withdrawn) The clerk will not compile a record from more than one case number. This would explain why the attorneys create a mess with multiple case file numbers when there is only one family and one family trust at issue.
- Texas First District Court of Appeal No. 01-22-00513-cv Petition for Writ of Mandamus (denied with no explanation) Apparently the dirt flows up steam in Texas which is a mirror of the Chalupowski fleecing in Massachusetts.
A December 5, 2021 Rule 11 Agreement; March 11, 2022 order severing the claims of diversity polluting “involuntary Plaintiff” Carl Brunsting from those of “Co-Plaintiff” Candace Curtis, Carl Brunstings’ March 18, 2022 Nonsuit of Candace Curtis and a February 25, 2022 Order for Summary Judgement, changing Candace Curtis standing, uncover the veil of fraudulent joinder and provide the basis for invoking removal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and (b)(1).
There hasn’t even been an evidentiary hearing. Candace Curtis could never get an evidentiary hearing. Without a hearing there is no evidence and without evidence no judgment can be entered. Oh, but let us not let law get in the way when stealing money is the only issue.
- SDTX No. 4:22-cv-1129 April 7, 2022 created by removal of the alleged Co-Trustees’ counterclaims to the Southern District of Texas.
The Interception Roadmap
I cannot say that I know all of the various schemes and artifice but I am familiar with those employed in the “Grift if the Buntings” and it appears to be a front end / back end operation that follows a rather routine script called: “How to Steal your Family Inheritance”. I didn’t write it but I think I know it when I see it. Today we are told by a myriad of advertisements that the way to avoid probate and guardianship is with pour-over-wills and a living trust and that may be so in a perfect world. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world. In this world the predators of the probate mafia are shrouded with their own self-manufactured doctrines of impunity. Attorneys are immune from suit by non-clients and go before their black robed brethren whom are loath to lessen their own impunity by piercing the veil of yours. Remember, Attorney and judicial immunity has not been legislated into law but merely adopted by judicial fiat.
While guardianship does not occur in this case, it should be noted that it was the Brunsting estate planning attorneys, who promised their products and services would avoid probate and guardianship, that caused Nelva to be subjected to a competency evaluation when Nelva discovered candace Kunz-Freed’s covert collusion with Anita Brunsting to change Elmer and Nelva’s trust agreement after the trust had become irrevocable by its own terms.
Elmer Brunsting [412248] and Nelva Brunsting [412249] had pour-over-wills and a living trust. Elmer’s estate inventory doesn’t contain any tangible property other than ½ of a 1970’s used car and Nelva’s estate inventory also contains ½ of a used car. Nothing else in either inventory provides a basis for probate jurisdiction.
Elmer and Nelva Brunsting had a son and four daughters they wanted to benefit from their lifetime of inherited and acquired wealth. Their concerns were quite simply to transfer their assets to their five progeny in equal proportions at their passing, minimizing taxes while avoiding guardianship and probate. In order to accomplish this purpose they retained the assistance of estate planning attorney Albert Vacek Jr. who gave specific- assurances that his products and services would accomplish these purposes. Elmer Brunsting [412248] and Nelva Brunsting [412249] both had pour-over-wills and a living trust.
Elmer Brunsting passed April 1, 2009 and Nelva Brunsting passed November 11, 2011. In theory, Elmer and Nelva did everything correctly as, under the law, all right, title and interest in their bounty vested equally in their five progeny, via the family trust, at the passing of Nelva Brunsting on November 11, 2011.